The Mutext stuff works great for allowing two AppDomains (i.e. "two .NET processes") to write to the same file without having to open and close the file after each write. If IIS forceably kills the old AppDomain becuase its taking too long to finish its requests will the new AppDomain get an AbadonedThreadException because the old AppDomain has the Mutext while it was writing to the file. I posted some additional thoughts on the issue here:
http://www.ayende.com/Blog/archive/2008/02/28/The-mysterious-life-of-mutexes.aspx#feedback I'm thinking adding in file open retries would a less hetic approach than tracking down the relationship between IIS, AppDomain resets, process termination, finalizers, and Mutexes. ----- Original Message ---- From: Erich Eichinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Log4NET User <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:06:21 AM Subject: RE: log4net and IIS problems Honestly I didn't do it in .NET yet, but from Win32 API I remember, that there was some "OpenOrCreate" Option for CreateMutex(). The return value of the function indicated, wheter the Mutex was newly created or just opened. I think there is some similar option in .NET, which at least allows for communication between the 2 processes. Maybe an option to defer persisting LogEvents until all Appenders are ready might be a better idea? In this case the new AppDomain would cache all LogEvents in memory until they can be appended. -Erich ________________________________ From: Ron Grabowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 2008-02-28 00:38 To: Log4NET User Subject: Re: log4net and IIS problems Didn't quite finish my thought...I meant to say that we could add an EventLogErrorHandler to catch edge cases like this. To address the underlying problem, someone posted some code to the control inter-process/AppDomain locking using a Mutext. My concern is what happens if the terminal AppDomain requests the Mutex then is forceably killed? According the Mutex docs on MSDN an Exception will be thrown when the new AppDomains attempts to open that Mutext. ----- Original Message ---- From: Ron Grabowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Log4NET User <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 6:04:19 PM Subject: Re: log4net and IIS problems "Common" was maybe a bad choice of words. If its reproducable ----- Original Message ---- From: Walden H. Leverich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Log4NET User <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 4:07:26 PM Subject: RE: log4net and IIS problems > Is this is a common problem? Yup. I know I've run into it a few of times. Of course, since log4net will fail silently (a good thing) it may be even more prevalent that I think, after all, how many people will know they're missing log entries? -- Walden H Leverich III Tech Software (516) 627-3800 x3051 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.TechSoftInc.com Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur. (Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.)
